Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Chepkoech alias Milcah v Chelugui & another (Environment and Land Appeal E038 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 178 (KLR)

Chepkoech alias Milcah v Chelugui & another (Environment and Land Appeal E038 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 178 (KLR) (29 January 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 178 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAPSABET ENVIRONMENT AND LAND APPEAL E038 OF 2022 GMA ONGONDO, J JANUARY 29, 2025 BETWEEN MILKA CHEPKOECH ALIAS MILCAH ................................................. PLAINTIFF AND KIBAES CHELUGUI ........................................................................ 1ST DEFENDANT NIMROD KIPTUM KOECH ......................................................... 2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1. The instant ruling is precipitated by an application by Mr. Korir learned counsel for the defendants that PW2, Marcella Jerotich Bett, should not testify in this suit on the grounds that her name is not in the Plaintifi’s list of witnesses and her statement was not filed and served upon the defendant’s counsel as required by law. 2. In response to the application, Mr M. Orina learned counsel for the plaintifi stated that the statement of PW1 is available. That the same was not served on the Defendant’s Counsel and her name is not shown in the list of the Plaintifi’s list of witnesses dated 14/11/2022 and 25/4/2024. 3. In that regard, is the application sustainable? 4. Notably, it is common ground that the plaintifi’s list of witnesses herein does not contain the name of PW2. Further the statement of PW2 was not filed and served on the defendants’ counsel within the prescribed timelines. 5. It is trite that a party to a suit must be made aware of the existence of the matter; see Ogada-vs-Mollin (2009) KLR 620. 6. Clearly, the plaintifi’s counsel neither filed and served the statement of PW2 nor included the name of PW2 in the plaintifi’s list of witnesses. The defendant is entitled to the said documents in the spirit of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/178/eng@2025-01-29 1

page 1 of 2

access to justice and fair hearing as enshrined under Articles 48, 50 (1) and 25 (c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. 7. Thus, the defendants’ application is meritorious. The same is allowed accordingly. 8. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025. G M A ONGONDO JUDGE Present; 1. Mark Orina, Learned Counsel for the plaintifi 2. A. Korir, Learned Counsel for the defendants 3. Walter, Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/178/eng@2025-01-29 2

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.